fluffy2097:way south: I only wish they'd stop making up acronyms and give these things more descriptive names.So that when the "Lets kill the internet" bill pops up for the seventh time, people don't have to hit Google to find out its the same damn thing.

Here is a life tip

If politicians are trying to pass it. It will actively try to destroy you.

/doesn't matter what side of the isle you sit on.

Depressingly true...

"No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." -I forgot who said that.

RockofAges:cman: So when did Alex Jones and his idiotic conspiracy theories become part of mainstream Americana instead of a fringe movement filled with morons?

Is he really such an idiot, and are they really such conspiracy "theories", when our decision-makers continually erode our privacies, liberties, and pocketbooks?

I'm not an Alex Jones guy but you have to give the dystopians some credit here -- we really ARE staring down the barrel of cyberpunk inspired tech-infused corporatism.

The problem is self-sustaining; on one side, a conspiracy nut will take a modest innovation and stretch it to some extreme end to sell their own kind of snake oil. On the other side, an industry-shaper will occasionally stumble upon some of these ridiculous rants and think "Hey, that's not a bad idea! Let's see how far we can push that!" Cycle rinse, repeat.

As far as what the end goal of it all is, I'd have to say it's something a little more simple than global enslavement of the masses. In all likelihood, the only goal here is complete and total user-pay, every time, all the time. I've no doubt in my mind that if a mechanism could be installed to bill everyone in earshot a fee for listening to your copyrighted ringtone, someone would try to get away with it.

mod3072:maggoo: Subjecting the will of a country to the whim of a couple of corporations isn't fascism?

It depends. If MY party is power when it happens, then no. If those other assholes are the ones who ram it down our throats, then yes, yes it is. If it is a bipartisan effort (which is fairly likely, since the only thing those farkers can agree on is screwing over the rest of us), then the answer is maybe. It was probably the other team's idea, and my side got tricked into supporting it.

This. Stop blindly supporting your side, idiots. Yes, I am talking to you if you always vote for a certain party

omnipotent_speck:RockofAges: cman: So when did Alex Jones and his idiotic conspiracy theories become part of mainstream Americana instead of a fringe movement filled with morons?

Is he really such an idiot, and are they really such conspiracy "theories", when our decision-makers continually erode our privacies, liberties, and pocketbooks?

I'm not an Alex Jones guy but you have to give the dystopians some credit here -- we really ARE staring down the barrel of cyberpunk inspired tech-infused corporatism.

The problem is self-sustaining; on one side, a conspiracy nut will take a modest innovation and stretch it to some extreme end to sell their own kind of snake oil. On the other side, an industry-shaper will occasionally stumble upon some of these ridiculous rants and think "Hey, that's not a bad idea! Let's see how far we can push that!" Cycle rinse, repeat.

As far as what the end goal of it all is, I'd have to say it's something a little more simple than global enslavement of the masses. In all likelihood, the only goal here is complete and total user-pay, every time, all the time. I've no doubt in my mind that if a mechanism could be installed to bill everyone in earshot a fee for listening to your copyrighted ringtone, someone would try to get away with it.

Even though politicians are not much more than elected robber barons, the past few years they have been all but naked on their greed and willingness to trample constitutional rights in the name of lined pockets from their rich biatch backers. Unfortunately, people are so blinded by party spiel they don't know (or don't care) that all parties are basically one, Corporatists.

mod3072: maggoo: Subjecting the will of a country to the whim of a couple of corporations isn't fascism?

It depends. If MY party is power when it happens, then no. If those other assholes are the ones who ram it down our throats, then yes, yes it is. If it is a bipartisan effort (which is fairly likely, since the only thing those farkers can agree on is screwing over the rest of us), then the answer is maybe. It was probably the other team's idea, and my side got tricked into supporting it.

This. Stop blindly supporting your side, idiots. Yes, I am talking to you if you always vote for a certain party

Anyone that pays attention to politics AND has read the constitution AND is anything other than a libertarian might be retarded.

There used to be a saying. "No taxation without representation." Remember that one? Take a good hard look at the people "representing" us in Washington DC. All of them filthy rich. The rich are the smallest minority in this country, and have the majority of the wealth. Is this accurate representation of the average American?

Cpl.D:There used to be a saying. "No taxation without representation." Remember that one? Take a good hard look at the people "representing" us in Washington DC. All of them filthy rich. The rich are the smallest minority in this country, and have the majority of the wealth. Is this accurate representation of the average American?

No.

I'd be cool with that if those "representatives" kept their stupid corporate bullcrap in their own country instead of making everyone else drink it.

nmemkha:Add Democracy to the governments that we have tried and failed. Humans are too lazy, apathetic, and collectively stupid to rule themselves.

The only problem with Democracy is that it requires an INFORMED constituents. On a side note, that's why issues like this are all the more serious.

On the other hand, a Republic, like we have here in the US, requires that the elected representatives actually REPRESENT the interests of their constituents. I'll even grant that what is good for the people isn't always popular. However, when you get to the point where elected officials only look out for themselves and their cronies... well, you get what we have today.

In fact, most forms of government are perfectly good. It's just that each and every one that I've ever seen rests on a single lynch pin. With Democracy it's informed decision making. With a Republic it's benevolence. With Communism it's selflessness.

Generally speaking, all forms of government work fairly well until greed and selfishness rise to power. I don't know that an effective way has ever been found to clean house. Other than fire and bullets.

If this ever comes to pass I guess this will give Dark Net the fuel it needs to grow by leaps and bounds.

There may come a day where you will see "Dark Fark", because posting information like this will be copyright infringement and nothing spreads the word of government and corporation corruption to millions of people like Fark, and they don't like that at all.

OhioKnight:Cythraul: So, is it the plan of supporters of laws like this to keep proposing them with different names until one finally sticks?

The nice thing about the TPP is it would be a TREATY or Executive Agreement -- which, under current SCOTUS rulings TRUMPS ANY CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTIONS.

Umm, what?

Sorry dude, but thats just an urban legend. The "law of the land" treaty portion was written when the word "treaty" had a more broad sense, as in not just foreign treaties with nations, but also printed publications and the like.

OhioKnight: Cythraul: So, is it the plan of supporters of laws like this to keep proposing them with different names until one finally sticks?

The nice thing about the TPP is it would be a TREATY or Executive Agreement -- which, under current SCOTUS rulings TRUMPS ANY CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTIONS.

Umm, what?

Sorry dude, but thats just an urban legend. The "law of the land" treaty portion was written when the word "treaty" had a more broad sense, as in not just foreign treaties with nations, but also printed publications and the like.

OhioKnight:OhioKnight: Cythraul: So, is it the plan of supporters of laws like this to keep proposing them with different names until one finally sticks?

The nice thing about the TPP is it would be a TREATY or Executive Agreement -- which, under current SCOTUS rulings TRUMPS ANY CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTIONS.

Umm, what?

Sorry dude, but thats just an urban legend. The "law of the land" treaty portion was written when the word "treaty" had a more broad sense, as in not just foreign treaties with nations, but also printed publications and the like.

I stand corrected: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Cover

Oh. And may I add that I've never been more pleased to find a long-held belief to be mistaken.

FeFiFoFark:a good start would be to legislate that corporations are NOT people and are not entitled to people's rights. Somebody start a petition.

That's a very good idea, but you can't just say "Corporations aren't people" -- we need some proposed rules as to how Corporations DO behave in law for such a petition to mean anything.

Corporations are a bunch of people working together as an entity that allows them not to be individually liable (as opposed to a partnership) so how do we fix the "people" situation without breaking the system that we all need to survive?

OhioKnight:FeFiFoFark: a good start would be to legislate that corporations are NOT people and are not entitled to people's rights. Somebody start a petition.

That's a very good idea, but you can't just say "Corporations aren't people" -- we need some proposed rules as to how Corporations DO behave in law for such a petition to mean anything.

Corporations are a bunch of people working together as an entity that allows them not to be individually liable (as opposed to a partnership) so how do we fix the "people" situation without breaking the system that we all need to survive?

Start by removing their ability to make gargantuan campaign contributions, and outlaw the practice of promoting executives in an industry to government positions regulating that same industry.

My biggest problem with this is it assumes that repeated allegations equate to fact. I can argue over and over again that martians have eaten my brains and replaced them with Bulls testicles (they have) but no matter how many times I make the allegations, it doesn't make it TRUE. If you use that form of truth for the basis of your penalties, that's a system primed for abuses of the worst kind.

kgf:OH NO!! If they start regulating the internet like this, I may have to start actually paying for the stuff I want!!! Then I'd have to get a job!!!

NOOOOOOOOOO!

1. We allege you have stolen our content. That you haven't doesn't matter; we allege it anyway because you're using a lot of the internets and we need that oversold bandwidth for more customers. Anyway, we're cutting you off. Toodles.

OhioKnight:FeFiFoFark: a good start would be to legislate that corporations are NOT people and are not entitled to people's rights. Somebody start a petition.

That's a very good idea, but you can't just say "Corporations aren't people" -- we need some proposed rules as to how Corporations DO behave in law for such a petition to mean anything.

Corporations are a bunch of people working together as an entity that allows them not to be individually liable (as opposed to a partnership) so how do we fix the "people" situation without breaking the system that we all need to survive?

It seems it was pretty easy to GIVE them the rights - should be just as easy to TAKE THEM AWAY. If i'm not mistaken, it was a simple oversight (perhaps) by a judge in the mid 1800's that gave corps these rights (anybody?). Before they had these rights the govnt could take away their charter to do business and liquify all their assets. I like that idea - include all CEO/Executives and board of directors and we have a pretty good start!

In fact, once darknet is forced into the mainstream, not only will everyone steal data consequence free, the media companies will have given terrorists a vast untraceable communications network. Unintended consequences, how do they work?

Canadians resisted the last internet surveillance bill because the guy (Vic Toews) said you are either with the child pornographers or you're with the government in passing the bill, well that didn't sit well with anybody. But it seems like they are going to give it another go. We'll see if the reaction is the same I guess.

ontariolightning:Canadians resisted the last internet surveillance bill because the guy (Vic Toews) said you are either with the child pornographers or you're with the government in passing the bill, well that didn't sit well with anybody. But it seems like they are going to give it another go. We'll see if the reaction is the same I guess.

I have it on good authority that NBC Universal, Viacom, Disney, CBS, News Cop, Time Warner, and Sony America have each infringed on three of my copyrights. I have no physical evidence of this, but I would like to allege it. Actually, I'd like to allege it three times.